WRITTEN QUESTION E-0716/02 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) and Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Care insurance in Flanders.
Date: 2002-03-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Flanders (Belgium), additional benefit, application of EU law, citizens' Europe, equal treatment, health insurance, interpretation of the law, social security legislation, social-security harmonisation

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/199

The Commission would not consider that the types of studies indicated would constitute an area for
priority action in this future programme, given that not all Member States are concerned by such artificial
insemination or adoption.

(1) Decision No 645/96/EC of 29 March 1996, OJ L 95, 16.4.1996 as extended by Decision 521/01/EC of 26 February

2001, OJ L 79, 17.3.2001.

(2002/C 205 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0716/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) and Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Care insurance in Flanders

(15 March 2002)

In Flanders, Belgium, a Flemish care insurance scheme (‘zorgverzekering’) has recently come into existence.
It is not clear whether it falls within the scope of Regulation 1408/71 (1).

Does the Commission take the view that the Flemish care insurance scheme falls within the scope of
Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation 1408/71? If not, may the Flemish authorities introduce qualifying periods for
EEA workers or retired workers who move to Flanders?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2002)

As regards the scope of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, the
Commission would like to remind the Honourable Members that the distinction between benefits excluded
from the scope of the Regulation and those which fall within it is based essentially on the constituent
elements of each particular benefit, in particular its purpose and the conditions under which it is granted,
and not on whether or not it is classified as a social security benefit by national legislation (see Molenaar
judgment (1), paragraph 19). Furthermore, the fact that benefits fall within the scope of Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 in no way influences how they are classified under national legislation (see, by analogy,
judgment in the case Commission v French Republic (2), paragraph 32).

A benefit may be regarded as a social security benefit within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
in so far as it is granted, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personnel needs, to
recipients on the basis of a legally defined position and provided that it concerns one of the risks expressly
listed in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1408/71. That list is exhaustive, so that a branch of social security
not mentioned therein does not fall within that category even if it confers upon recipients a legally defined
position entitling them to benefits (see in particular Molenaar judgment, paragraphs 20 et seq).

In the case of care insurance, as introduced by the Decree of the Flemish Community of Belgium of
30 March 1999 on the organisation of care insurance, which is the subject of the Honourable Members’
question, it is clear that the provisions on the granting of the care insurance benefits in question give
recipients a legally defined right.

It therefore ensues from the legislation in question and from the information available to the Commission
that care insurance gives entitlement to full or partial direct payment of certain expenditure entailed by the
insured person’s reliance on care, such as care provided in the home or in specialised centres or hospitals,
and the purchase of equipment and materials required by insured persons, such as special beds, mattresses
or chairs, respirators and oxygen cylinders. Accordingly, benefits of that type are essentially intended to

C 205 E/200

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

supplement sickness insurance benefits in order to improve the state of health and the quality of life of
persons reliant on care. Under these circumstances, they must be regarded as ‘sickness benefits’ within the
meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (see also Molenaar judgment, paragraphs 23-25,
and Jauch judgment (3), paragraph 28).

Since the care insurance benefits in question consist of direct payment or reimbursement of the costs
incurred as a result of the insured person’s reliance on care, they fall within the definition of the ‘benefits
in kind’ referred to in Articles 19(1)(a), 25(1)(a), and 28(1)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 (see Molenaar
judgment, paragraph 32).

Article 18 of the said Regulation also applies to these benefits. According to paragraph 1 of this Article,
‘the competent institution of a Member State whose legislation makes the acquisition, retention or recovery
of the right to benefits conditional upon the completion of periods of insurance, employment or residence
shall, to the extent necessary, take account of periods of insurance, employment or residence completed
under the legislation of any other Member State as if they were periods completed under the legislation
which it administers’.

Consequently, the condition applicable to Community nationals, which was introduced into the legislation
in question by the Decree of 18 May 2001 referred to by the Honourable Members, requiring them to
have paid contributions for at least five years, must be applied in such a manner that periods of health
insurance completed under the legislation of another Member State are regarded as insurance periods
within the meaning of the legislation in question.

The Commission has contacted the Belgian authorities in order to verify the legislation in question’s
consistency with Community law and its application to Community nationals. It will keep the Honourable
Members informed of developments.

(1)
(2)
(3)

Judgment of 5 March 1998, Molenaar, C-160/96, ECR I-0843.
Judgment of 15 February 2000, Commission v French Republic, C-169/98, ECR I-1049.
Judgment of 8 March 2001, Jauch, C-215/99, ECR I-1901.

(2002/C 205 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0718/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Obligatory collection of information on users by Microsoft.NET Passport and measures to protect

their privacy

1.
Is the Commission aware of Microsoft’s free NET Passport service, which, while consumers are
engaged in a purchase, a game, a request or a bank transaction on line, is designed continually to collect
their personal
information via for instance, an e-mail address (Hotmail), a chat programme (MSN
Messenger), a shop (Expedia.com), an auction site (QXL), a community (MSN Communities) or a hotel
chain (Hilton.com) and that, as a result, a vast quantity of personal information is surreptitiously passed on
to unknown parties by, in particular, Hotmail address owners without their noticing it?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that failure to register with NET Passport results in exclusion from
many sites’ services, that unsubscribing is not possible, that periodically only out-of-date information is
removed and that the passwords to be given (minimum of six characters only) are easily accessible, to
some extent,
to others posing as system administrators or possessing considerable knowledge of
dictionaries?

3.
Does the Commission regard it as acceptable that users of public terminals in universities, libraries or
Internet cafes who fail to log off correctly may pass on their confidential information to the next user, that
to hire software via the Internet (using Microsoft servers instead of a personal hard disk) access is possible
only via NET Passport, and that, because of a de facto monopoly, Microsoft may shortly charge a high
price for what are still for the time being free services?